Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A done deal, and given Connecticut’s deep blue electorate, one not likely to be overridden by amendment.
Probably good for McCain, though.
The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state’s “understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”…
In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state’s civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was “equitable and just.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”…
The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. “Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.”
Here’s the opinion. Skip ahead to page 21 for the crux of it, declaring gays a “quasi-suspect class” for purposes of the state’s equal protection jurisprudence. What “class” you are pretty much determines as a rule whether you can be discriminated against by law; if you belong to a class that’s “suspect,” i.e. historically powerless and persecuted, then the legislature has virtually no leeway against you. The Connecticut Supremes decided they couldn’t call gays a fully “suspect” class because the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t declared them that (yet), so they opted for “quasi-suspect” based on four factors: (1) historic discrimination, (2) whether sexual orientation is related to one’s ability to contribute to society (this is here to give the state extra power to regulate the disabled), (3) immutability of sexual orientation, i.e. is it a choice or is it inborn and thus unchangeable, and (4) whether gays lack political power, which starts on page 28 and is the most interesting section of the four.
All in all, the analysis is similar to the California Supreme Court’s, which also used an equal protection argument to strike down their state’s marriage statute. The fatal blow for gay marriage opponents is the fact that the state already allows civil unions for gay couples; I think laypeople look at that and assume that that means the state, having acted in good faith, will be given the benefit of the doubt when gays inevitably sue for full marriage rights, but as I’ve tried to explain before, it doesn’t work that way. To discriminate by law, you need a good reason. Admitting that gays should be entitled to all the same rights as married couples but not the label of “marriage” itself forces the court to conclude that the distinction is purely semantic, and semantics simply ain’t good enough as a “good reason.” From page 62:
Although we acknowledge that many legislators and many of their constituents hold strong personal convictions with respect to preserving the traditional concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution, such beliefs, no matter how deeply held, do not constitute the exceedingly persuasive justification required to sustain a statute that discriminates on the basis of a quasi-suspect classification. ‘‘That civil marriage has traditionally excluded same-sex couples—i.e., that the ‘historic
and cultural understanding of marriage’ has been between a man and a woman—cannot in itself provide a [sufficient] basis for the challenged exclusion. To say that the discrimination is ‘traditional’ is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely ‘for its own sake’ [Romer v. Evans, supra, 517 U.S. 635]. Instead, the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay [persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself [see id., 633, 635]. Because the ‘tradition’ of excluding gay [persons] from civil marriage is no different from the classification itself, the exclusion cannot be justified on the basis of ‘history.’ Indeed, the justification of ‘tradition’ does not explain the classification; it merely repeats it. Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination—no matter how entrenched—does not make the discrimination constitutional . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 7 N.Y.3d 395 (Kaye, C. J., dissenting)…It is only because the state has not advanced a sufficiently persuasive justification for denying same sex couples the right to marry that the traditional definition of marriage necessarily must be expanded to include such couples. If the defendants were able to demonstrate sufficient cause to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then we would reject the plaintiffs’ claim and honor the state’s desire to preserve the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the absence of such a showing, however, we cannot refuse to follow settled equal protection jurisprudence merely because doing so will result in a change in the definition of marriage.
Exit question: Time to start talking about Obama’s judicial appointments?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 Next »
Which I am against and fight.
A lie for which you have still failed to provide any evidence to back up.
And right in line with your pink helicopters conspiracy theory.
Hey, I like that. Instead of black helicopters, you fear pink ones.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:19 PM
There is, in a modern society, a profound confusion between Christianity and liberalism. Liberalism is in many ways a parody of Christian ethics.
Liberalism is a weak limp parody of the loving side of Christianity whereas Islam is an illiterate angry parody of the stern, disciplined side of Christianity.
These two forms of political evil ally with each other when it suits them but their combined weight cannot triumph over good.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 10:19 PM
When you know that someone is a self proclaimed and out of control sexual pervert and you let them adopt an innocent and defenseless child….you’re an idiot or worse.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Actually much worse than an idiot…diabolically evil.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 10:24 PM
So a man who stays monogamous with another man is an out of control sexual pervert, but a man who stays monogamous with a woman is…not?
I love your crazy standards. It’s like watching Looney Tunes.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:27 PM
I don’t disagree with that. I just also don’t agree with how the church handled this issue.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Out of control.
Ask any of them. And since when has this been about monogamy?
THIS IS ABOUT IMPLEMENTING HATE CRIME LAWS!
And for you to defend these dispicable unconstitutional practices of supreme court “justices” overriding the will of the voters is disgusting!
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 10:31 PM
That’s all fine and well, but I’m no liberal. I assume you’ll ask him to refrain from all the personal insults as well?
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 10:32 PM
We should organize a 10 million man march…surround D.C. and DEMAND THE RESIGNATION OF EVERY POLITICIAN IN WASHINGTON!!!
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM
I have no problem with that, but as usual you and fools like Madison always respond to me first. Check the record. You always respond to me first and then cry when you start losing your debates with me. It never fails. By the way, maybe I missed it, but I asked you TWICE if an openly loud and proud homosexual could be a saved Bible-believing Christian and on there way to heaven. Your answer:
What is your reason for not warning openly loud and proud homosexuals about hell? How do you respond to Scripture like:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither FORNICATORS, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, SHALL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; BUT HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.” Matthew 7:21
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 10:34 PM
I have no problem responding to you if you’re going to treat me with the respect of reading my posts. If you’re not going to, then don’t expect respect from me.
I’ve answered your question. Worry more about your own sins of arrogance and hate before you worry about gay people getting into Heaven.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 10:37 PM
If I missed it I apologize, but where is your answer?
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Well I did not mean you personally or specifically. The topic (liberalism vs. Christianity) presented itself and I felt inclined to comment on it generally.
As far as asking people to refrain from personal insults I don’t think it’ll do much good at this stage. I can tell you that you won’t be receiving any insults from me if thats any use.
I do not agree with your formulation of relative truths i.e. your truth, my truth, JetBoy’s truth. There is the the truth as laid out in the Bible and that is what we are meant to follow.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I agree 100%. Well, said.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 10:44 PM
I agree with that, but in a free society people can choose whether or not they’re going to follow that truth or even if they believe in it.
You didn’t miss it. You’ve responded to it already in this thread.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 10:47 PM
And I haven’t done anything unscriptural. I’ve called those who rely on their own judgment fools. I call Madison a fool. I think Madison is a fool. The Bible itself says, “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.” Proverbs 28:26
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 10:48 PM
And I think you’re a nut. Glad we’ve got our views of each other out in the open.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Yes but I don’t believe failing to adopt paganism as a societal norm (same-sex marriage, polygamy) violates the rights of non-believers or qualifies them as a persecuted class.
I think the minimum standard for a Conservative atheist should be to say “I don’t believe in your religious doctrine but I understand it is beneficial to the greater good” as Allan Bloom, Frank Miller and various other people do.
Homosexual marriage is radical and society-altering. It goes too far in the wrong direction. If it was a simple matter of allowing people greater happiness with no consequences for society (which it isn’t) there would not be massive opposition.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Uh, excuse me, but you did not answer my question. I asked you if a LOUD and PROUD homosexual could be a saved and on his way to heaven. Last time I checked all you said was:
Your answer contradicts Scripture. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 clearly states that LOUD and PROUD homosexuals will NOT enter heaven:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither FORNICATORS, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, SHALL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
This is my question. Don’t you see the contradiction with what you said and Scripture, and will you not admit your own personal advice is extremely dangerous for homosexuals?
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Bull. How is extremist Islam beneficial to the greater good? How are cults like Scientology beneficial to the greater good? Some religions are beneficial, some are not. Those that seek to make others feel bad for doing something completely legal are the latter. Note that I’m not addressing the belief, but I am addressing behavior such as calling people “queer sex adherents” or asserting that homosexuals are out of control sex perverts or pedophiles or any of that other garbage. It’s as offensive as you find the Catholic priest pedophile thing.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Well, try checking again, because I have nothing else to say to you.
That’s not what I was talking about. But the truth is that we already have accepted homosexuality as a norm. Polygamy is still fringe, but I doubt it still will be in a decade or two.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I meant Christianity.
Those are the statements of individuals. Anonymous internet commenters talk a lot of crap. I haven’t made any of those kinds of statements myself and I won’t.
However in your skepticism you have not accepted that I can oppose homosexual marriage, consider sodomy a sin and not hate homosexuals simultaneously.
So I’m not sure where you’re coming from.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Well I haven’t accepted homosexuality as a norm and clearly lots of other people haven’t either. There is nothing virtuous about being a reed that bends with the wind.
You should oppose it now before it becomes the fashion. I do.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Yes, of course. But, you fail to affirm that mankind is called to be obedient to God’s Will. That means there are absolutes. In these debates you’re always defending everyone else’s truth, but God’s. And that kind of New Age thinking (my truth, my way) is leading alot of people straight to hell. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth” (John 14:6). You defend wicked vile sinners like Madison more than you do the Rock of Ages.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 11:24 PM
I’ve never denied it, either. The only beliefs I’ve begrudged anyone are such as the “Pink Helicopters – FEMA Camp” idiocy. I haven’t attacked you for statements you haven’t made.
As for that kind of crap coming only from anonymous internet commenters, that’s absolutely not true in my case. I’ve heard it from my own family, and from acquaintances, as well as loudmouth bunches like the Westboro folks, all of which I hope get lynched one day. I’ve heard it for years, and see it as as much of a threat as the anti-religious homo militants at the Folsom fair.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Virtue has nothing to do with it. That’s simply how society functions. At some point the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction, and we’ll have another Puritan society.
I see no reason to worry about what society accepts or does not accept. You don’t bring people to Christ by focusing on legalism, and it’s not the point of having a relationship with Christ anyway.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 11:27 PM
I’ve no proof that Madison is a sinner anymore than you are.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I don’t see the appeal. We currently have serial polygamy. Men can have two or three wives during their lives and as the men get older and wealthier the wives get younger (and usually somehow taller). I don’t see those men pushing for polygamy in order to keep their first wives around. I imagine the women being even less enthusiastic about it.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Well I don’t know what to tell ya except that I believe Christian principles are fundamentally sound even if lots of folks misapply them.
I understand that you are attempting to strike a balance, a kind of moderate stance but I see the Folsom St. crowd as far worse because they push their perversity in peoples faces.
Christians can be loudmouthed but we’re not trying to repeal freedoms, just conserve society before it all disappears down a postmodern abyss.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Prove my sin. The only one I’ve seen so far is intense pride on your part. Know thy place, kid.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Ah ah ahhh…come on now. That’s intellectually dishonest and you know it. Christians have railed against every “vice” there is since this country was founded and it’s continued. I’m not saying you personally, or even your belief, because I don’t know what your church or particular sect is, but Christianity and religion in general has always lobbied for the limiting of the ability of the populace to do what they wish. I respect Christianity for giving people hope, not for telling people what to do.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Serial monogamy (which you call serial polygamy) is not the same thing as actual polygamy.
People can choose to lead immoral lives and no one can stop them but the important thing is that this behaviour is not offically approved by legalising polygamous marriage.
As I have said before I am all for repealing no-fault divorce.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 11:38 PM
You did NOT answer. I repeat, if I missed it I do apologize, but I very carefully went over every response of yours since I asked this question and you have offered no answer. Just admit you’re wrong and we’ll move on, but don’t lie. You’ve done enough of that for one night.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Yes of course Christianity restrains people from vice (sometimes by law) and so it should. What I’m saying is that arguing against a freedom which was only made up in recent years is not reactionary. I don’t know why you put the word vice in inverted commas–do you consider immoral behaviour a post-modern abstraction?
It does both, necessarily so.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 11:45 PM
My point is that serial monogamy (your term is right; my term implies a bizarre arrangement) is preferable to most people so I don’t see a push toward polygamy. Even single people tend not to be polygamous. They may have multiple mates but usually not under the same roof at the same time.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 11:46 PM
What about “I have nothing else to say to you” is so confusing? You know my argument, because you responded to it earlier. You’re able to find what I wrote from four months ago but not what I wrote on this thread?
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Christ said to reject the way of the world and follow His way. I would prefer a Christian society but if thats not available then I will act like a kind of Christian dissident. You don’t seem to care too much either way.
Forget legalism. Polygamy is wrong and you should oppose it on a moral footing.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Vice is a very relative term. Some religions see pornography as a vice. Some see any painting of nudity as vice. Some see alcohol, even a single beer, as vice. Some see smoking as a vice, some don’t. I would also remind you that at different times, freedoms such as the right of voting were “only made up in recent years”. That is a cop-out, my friend. Cultures change over time, and attempting to avert it is like trying to hold back a tidal wave with a garbage can lid.
There we agree.
There we do not. I fear we shall have no meeting of the minds on said point. Shall we agree to disagree?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 11:52 PM
It is imperative, I think, that non-traditional sexual relations are not codified in law and therefore legitimised as acceptable. Yes people will still make their own arrangements but it should not be held up as an ideal.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 11:54 PM
About changing society? No, not really. The only real way to change society is by helping others get a relationship with Christ, not in telling people what they should and should not do.
Sin is irrelevant for people who aren’t Christians. The Bible clearly states there’s only one way to God, and living a sin free life is not it. You’re worrying about the wrong thing.
It’s like a doctor deciding to treat a symptom as opposed to treating the disease. It seems nice on a superficial level, but it does nothing.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Now see, that boggles my mind. If god made the world and saw that it was good, he must not have been looking very closely to set it in motion such that it ended up so bad that he had to send down a hippie with a hell of a story to get nailed to a tree for daring to say that everyone should be nice to each other for a change.
In essence, he said “forget the world I made, I need the help of you, the people I created from scratch, to turn it around”.
I’m not sure I like this guy. Sounds too much like the managers at my company who get fired every Christmas for screwing up.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Here’s some proof. The Bible says, “For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Guess what ALL means? Everybody! YOU, Me, Madison. Everybody here! Am I am a wicked, vile, sinner? You bet I am! God took my rotten dirty heart, that loved to lust, that prefered lying, stealing, and lying to tell the truth, I was no different than any other person I just hid it very well. He took me, and He transformed me. He gave me new desires for what is right, rather than for what’s wrong. He opened up the Bible to me it was like a light comin’ on God’s Word. And He can do that for everybody here too. We’re all sinners. All you gotta do is repent of that sin put your faith in Jesus. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Relative or no you put inverted commas over the very concept. Just because there are disagreement over what constitutes a vice does not mean such a thing cannot exist.
I don’t accept that. Democracy is older than Christianity. Perhaps you’re thinking of universal suffrage?
Therefore culture can only change in one direction and I’m a fool to try to halt it? I don’t think so. Just because homosexual activists want to change the culture so that it becomes gay-friendly doesn’t make it inevitable. Not by a long shot.
Christian doctrine is didactic and quite clear. You can argue that it should not tell people what to do or should not have as great an influence over society that it presently does but the content of the doctrine is plain.
aengus on October 13, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I see your point on polygamy, but gay people don’t have an alternative. If you believe that marriage gives each person more strength, stability and fulfillment than living alone it would seem to follow that the commitment would be positive for gay people.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 12:02 AM
You’re very offensive. How do you expect that I should take you seriously when you write these things?
You insult Jesus, you insult God and you think being very funny and clever about it.
aengus on October 13, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Whatever. Whenever a Christian makes a good point. One that the phony Christian cannot answer. This is what happens. The phony Christian will use lame excuses. You can tell when you have a phony Christian grabbing for answers out of thin air, when they start changing the subject (very popular). Make the subject more personal to you by insulting you. Okay, Esthier. You don’t have to answer. I won’t hate you for it. I don’t hate you. I only wish you’d put your whole faith in God’s Word and put as much effort fighting for Him as you do defending the scoffers. Jesus asks, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). I want to see you in heaven with the rest of us.
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM
On a tangent, I’m reminded of the CEO’s of Lehman and AIG testifying recently. It was amazing how they described what happened to their companies where they were doing their jobs just fine until a whole bunch of stuff outside of their control just happened–and then poof no more company.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM
I think that marriage as a union between a man and women is positive but I don’t think its the same thing for same-sex couples. It is in the very act of begetting and raising children that many wedded couples mature and think beyond themselves.
aengus on October 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Children are a big deal. I won’t fight you on that. However, at some point the children leave and a couple has decades to fill with just each other. I don’t imagine that childless gay couples are that much different than empty nesters.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I was not implying that it does not exist, merely that it was relative. That’s all the quotes meant.
I was more referring to the right of women to vote, right of minorities to vote, etc. I was speaking not in the sphere of history, but of America.
What problem do you have with being friends with gay people? Your words imply that you prefer a gay-hostile culture. They have those all over the middle east, and I would fight tooth and nail to end any such culture here.
Well, any power that seeks domination over people and does not promote freedom as the U.S. does is a power that I would fight. Simple as that.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Well we’ve gone through many arguments…legal, political, moral. You seem to want the best for people which is a good instinct but it doesn’t necessarily lead to the good. Homosexual marriage deranges a society with all its legal addendums that must be instituted in order to enshrine the cardinal virtue of modern liberal society, anti-discrimination.
aengus on October 13, 2008 at 12:21 AM
If you can’t take glibness about the story of creation and Jesus Christ, then that’s your problem. I didn’t insult anyone, pal. Jesus had no job, long hair, and sandals. By all accounts, a hippie. I also never insulted god. I very clearly voiced my concern that god could create a world, see that it was good, and a few thousand years later it’s a hellhole. Good lord, I’ve talked to priests and ministers less sensitive than you. If you’re going to throw a fit over the injection of non-hostile humor into a rather uptight discussion, then you need to learn to be more comfortable with your beliefs so that your sensibilities aren’t so easily shattered.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Double-edged sword, my friend.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Fair enough.
In other words universal suffrage. Fine.
You’re confusing “domination” over one’s soul with political domination. Its not the same thing. The U.S. and Christianity are hardly diametric opposites.
aengus on October 13, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Ciao. I’ll be praying for each one of you. Friend or foe. We all need it.
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Political domination is rarely achieved without religious domination, and religious domination is almost never achieved without political domination. Because of your religious views, you are trying to direct US policy. Hence, domination.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 12:31 AM
I think it is a non-trivial consideration. If the point is that marriage would be good for gays, but we can’t do it because it is bad for society. I understand the nature of the argument but don’t agree with it.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 12:31 AM
That is silly.
It is hard to catch someone’s tone correctly over the internet. Perhaps if I had been speaking to you in person I would have understood from your tone of voice and the expression on your face that it was a harmless joke and laughed.
I didn’t throw a fit. I just don’t think calling Jesus a “hippy nailed to a tree” is funny.
aengus on October 13, 2008 at 12:33 AM
correction: not funny
aengus on October 13, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Well those in favour of instituting homosexual marriage throughout the West are clearly winning. So we’ll see what happens I guess. I think it will be very bad but perhaps I’m wrong. I hope you guys are right and it won’t be a big disruption to the social fabric.
aengus on October 13, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Some of the “faithful” are sensitive to heresy. Cut ‘em some slack – God does.
The thread is uptight because there are multiple concepts being discussed. I went back and read your 9:25 post as soon as I noticed your alert that it was there.
I must say I was surprised at the different tone. (no, that doesn’t mean I now like you)
Seriously, the problem with queer rights is that they are not necessary PLUS they interfere with rights that have already been recognized. Granting queer rights means (for example) that if a situation ever arises where a guy gets fired for poor performance, the smartest thing for him to do would be to claim to be queer (thus being protected by the queer rights laws).
How can anyone prove he isn’t one? Hint – it can’t be done.
Ever since we have had this queer protection law forced on us here in Washington state, I have told people that I would never hire a “homosexual.” I’ve been told that it is legal suicide – the law would be broken and I would have to pay.
Rubbish. How could he prove he was homosexual? Could he pass the Daubert test for queerness? How could he establish something which exists only in his mind?
By the time I got done with him, he would be paying me to settle with him so he wouldn’t have to pay my legal fees for filing a frivolous lawsuit!
Same thing with the thin-skinned defenders of the faith – their offense assumes that everyone is under the same faith umbrella as they are. It ain’t so. God Himself (and His Son) both claimed to have a limited Kingdom.
Now dominion is something else, and sovereignty is something else yet again.
Gotta know what words mean. Which is why all the laws can be passed to benefit queer sex practitioners but it ain’t marriage and it never will be.
Words have meanings.
platypus on October 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM
So you don’t think it’s not funny?
So you think it’s funny?
Good. I like it too.
You have belief that you are right. I have the belief that I am. So all I can say is trust me. I’m a conservative, hence no big fan of change. However, it’s not just that society has changed. I think most homosexuals (excluding activists) have realized they have to change if they want society to change. We have to meet in the middle. Unity as one nation requires sacrifice. If it comes down to repelling enemy invasion, what body parts a person prefers won’t make a whit of difference to me. I’ll be more concerned with whether they can shoot.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 12:50 AM
And I’m spent. Work in the morning. Night all.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 12:50 AM
The meanings have changed in the U.S. over time whether the word is marriage, divorce, citizen, voter, soldier.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 12:59 AM
You snake! Long hair. A hippie. Do you know what your doing or even saying? That’s absurd, ridiculous, nonsense! Look what does the Bible say about long hair. Take a look:
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”
There is no specific definition of how long is “long,” but the context indicates that there should be a clear distinction between the long, beautiful hair of women and the short hair of men. This unisex fad, earings, guys with long hair, the hippie generation, it’s just one more sign of rebellion against our Creator. The common depiction of Jesus with long flowing hair must, therefore, be incorrect. In fact, Josephus and other writers of that day indicate that most men, both Jewish and roman, were usually beardless and short-haired.
No. You need to show some respect and get your facts straight, pal. I love Jesus too much to diss Him like that. He took a lot of pain for me! You’re like a rambling drunk who’s talking to loud and embarrassing everybody. Don’t believe everything you think.
apacalyps on October 13, 2008 at 1:56 AM
You missed a very important point apacalyps:
First, Jesus had a job. He was a rabbi during his ministry. Before that, he was a carpenter. The Bible does not go into detail much about what he did between his major miracles, but I imagine he ministered several Jewish ceremonies. Heck, he was employed as MC at the Wedding at Cana.
But once again, the belief indecisive can’t seem to get a grasp over basic Biblical facts.
BKennedy on October 13, 2008 at 2:18 AM
your site doesn’t support your contention. you can’t name an organization that is comparable to NAMBLA..in fact your reference bolsters my point that gay marriage is just another step to normalizing pedophilia…after all isn’t it just an ‘alternative lifestyle’??? hmmm???
the slippery slope argument is very relevent to this debate.
too bad you don’t have the intellect to grasp it.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 8:59 AM
but you are judging. you are saying that homosexuality is a-OK…regardless of what the bible says…under your standard, homosexuality, or any other perversion is OK, because thats between an individual and God. so murder, rape, torture, anything goes in your little world…as long as the liberals approve of it no doubt.
you are sick and evil.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 9:04 AM
You’re mistaken about the long hair and beard Brother Apacalyps.
JESUS DID HAVE LONG HAIR AND A LONG BEARD.
So did Samson, John the Baptist, James the Just and other Apostles,almost all Orthodox priests and monks for 172 generations leading back to Christ, in addition to many, many Saints.
Jesus Christ had long hair parted in the middle and a long beard. The reason why the Priesthood and Saints had long hair also, is to imitate our Lord Jesus Christ in every way.
As for beards..in fact the priesthood is commanded to wear beards Lev.19:27
The reason we know how our Lord Jesus Christ looked during His incarnation is because the icons painted of him were originally painted by eyewitnesses and/or by eyewitnesses advising the icon painters.
St. Luke famously painted many icons of Jesus.
Here is an icon painted by St. Luke
http://blackincense.com/vladimir-mother.jpg
It means trimming off the hair that falls below the middle of the back.
The practice of shaving off your beard is a PAGAN concept..first by the pagans who invaded Israel and of course later by the pagan Greeks and pagan Romans.
The reason why the Roman Catholic priests decided to CHANGE the practice of wearing beards and long hair is because they wanted to fit in with the pagans, as the pagans considered beards and long hair the sign of a peasant. That is where the protestant get this practice of beardless clergy…from the Roman Catholics changes.
The beardless look is a pagan concept, in fact the beardless look is considered more shameful according to historical Christianity, which advised even the Laity to not have the unisex look of a shaved face and advised them to wear a mustache at least if they can’t get away with the full beard and in order to not look like a woman or pagan.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx
But you’re right that MadisonConservative shamelesly slanderers our Lord in many many ways and you’re absolutely right that our Lord Jesus Christ DID in fact condemn homosexuality and He did state that He created marriage for one man and one woman not for two men or two women..
SaintOlaf on October 13, 2008 at 9:06 AM
and whats even funnier esthier, is your outrage about ’sins’ is so focused on the dread sin that I do, which is to oppose gay marriage, and the gay agenda…but you have no problem with the sin of homosexuality.
truth is you serve a god in your own image. not the God of the bible. you are deluded.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 9:14 AM
yeah so are you with you fascist views you dumb piece of trash. seriously you are stupid as a rock. you must be in a great deal of pain, such stupidity has to hurt.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 9:20 AM
it is read the work of Stanley Kurtz on this subject…
link
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Ah, like the cawing of a crow as I sit on the lawn with a drink, taking in the summer air.
I notice nobody has addressed my concern yet.
No, I named an entire country with a sizable chunk of the population in favor of legalizing sex with children. Sorry they don’t have an easy-to-remember name. I know you have trouble with anything outside your own tiny paradigm.
Yeah, I know. I’m a serpent. I’m the devil. I should burn BURN BURNNNNNNN!!!
So um, what about Pink Helicopter’s argument that he did have long hair? I guess that’s why hid dad let him get crucified, eh? His haircut?
Again, I haven’t “dis”sed anyone. You know, “dis” is slang. It never even was a word until about 20 years ago. What were people like you saying about language?
Don’t believe everything I think? Sorry, the reason I think the way I do is because I believe it. I’m comfortable with my beliefs because I base them on truths and facts that I’ve tested and confirmed over and over in my life. I have no intention of walking around in doubt and fear like you and some here do, ready to burn at the stake any heretics that dare speak anything but respect for what I believe. People like you secretly yearn for a few hundred years ago when you could have seen me punished for what I say, and deep down you have nothing but hatred for the first amendment that protects my right to do so. All because of your own doubts and fears that you are wrong. That’s a horrible way to live. If I choose to believe and follow a god, it will be in hope and faith, not shame and guilt.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 9:56 AM
the rest of us are at work…but you need someone to pay for your leisurely lifestyle.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:16 AM
btw: hope you have a nice cushion to sit on, you have to be sore from bending over so much…
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Also from the study Kurtz quotes:
Maybe it was gay marriage. Perhaps it was the legal hash, the Internet or cell phones. Seems like the social scientist have identified some correlation but not cause-and-effect.
You’d have to believe:
1.) Some people opted out of straight marriage in favor of gay marriage.
2.) Some people, by seeing gays take vows decided that they would have children but do so without the vows.
In the U.S. we’ve seen a decline in marriage over the past 40 years, without gay marriage. What’s our fault?
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 10:23 AM
interesting that you would name the netherlands…guess what they have gay marriage and you admit they favor of legalizing sex with children. Thanks for admitting that gay marriage leads to pedophilia.
whats funny is that you think you were making an argument against me…but really you just made the case!! thanks buddy boy!
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM
That was exactly my point, apacalyps. Why focus on Madison when even you’re a sinner?
Only for three years, and it killed Him, so I imagine there’s a conservative morale there.
Jesus was an informal rabbi to His own disciples not to anyone else. He didn’t have a temple and was despised by all of the religious leaders of they day. As soon as they could, they had Him executed.
And no, turning water into wine at a wedding where you are a guest does not make you the MC.
Why can’t you get it through your thick skull that I’m saying no such thing? I’m making no judgment either way on the issue. I know it would be wrong for me, but that’s it.
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
You are rotten from inside out and have nothing but hatred for anyone who disagrees with you. You put on the appearance of righteousness like the Pharisees who prayed to God in the streets but showed contempt for God and His word in their hearts. You know nothing of Peace or Love; “He who loves not, knows not God.”
You disgust me, because you do far more harm to Christ and Christianity than a non Christian ever could. You tear the Body of Christ apart from inside, out of fear that some outsider might do the job for you.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM
you missed this of course…
yeah the institution of marriage is in trouble in this country, thanks to the liberal attitudes of cohabitation, free sex, ie the exact things that lead to gay marriage…and you just want to make it meaningless by introducing gay ‘marriage’ and then of course polyandry is next.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Which is all it’s supposed to be. Some people who are too full of their own self importance enjoy trying to harm others by making rules, by following legalism as though the law can save anyone from anything.
I understand that you don’t believe, and I’m not trying to change your mind, but I hate how they’ve misrepresented my faith. Christianity is about being saved into love and peace, the kinds of love and peace that allow you to find compassion for others, not the kind that make you want to rule over others with your own feelings of self righteousness.
It’s not about getting into Heaven either but about meeting God and going through life with God the way you will do with your future wife (only without the sex obviously).
It’s not about doing the right things or abstaining from the wrong ones. Yes, Christians do believe that certain things are sins and thus should be avoided but that’s secondary to actually having a relationship with God and we only abstain from or do these things because it’s what we want to do, because that relationship causes us to want these things.
Sorry for the rant, but there are very few things I hate more than legalism. It’s been used throughout history as a way to control mankind by preying on their fears of the afterlife, and it’s the greatest perversion of religion.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM
yes you are. by not judging, you are judging. and of course I have noticed that your hatred, your outrage is directed at those opposing gay marriage, not at those for it…so you’re lying, again.
now you’re judging my eternal destiny…this from someone who can’t judge gay marriage, or think homosexuality is a sin….oh yeah you have a god in your own image..the hubris…sick and evil.
take the plank out of your own eye first ‘honey’ before you take the spec out of mine.
you sicken me, and you bring disgrace upon the Lord you claim to serve.
you are vile and evil.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Oh, their outrage entertains me. However, it shows me deep down how much they really loathe the freedom of religion and expression. Some of these sick, tormented people would rather put people like me in irons and enforce their will upon everyone who doesn’t believe. Again, these are the people that give the other 99% of Christians a bad name. They’re timeless creatures that pervade every era of history.
How about if I send you a box full of pixy stix? Will that help?
Prepare for a shock. I agree with you on nearly everything you just said. Except for one thing: You still haven’t demonstrated how gay marriage would be a right that would interfere with your rights. As to discrimination laws in America, I think they need serious reform.
My father has rented apartments and houses for years as his profession. He does it all on his own, and prides himself on being competitive in offering reasonable rates to people. About 15 years ago, he had a couple of apartment buildings that he rented in a somewhat poorer area of a city. Having had experience with “Section 8″ tenants that was entirely disastrous, he decided to make it a policy that he would no longer take rent assistance applicants. One day, his female Mexican apartment manager made this clearly known to a black woman who looked into renting. The woman then walked to the nearest HUD office and accused my father, who had never met her, of racial discrimination.
What followed was several years of government harassment, including agents invading his apartments and hassling his tenants, calling our home and trying to get my mother and I to make negative statements about him, and even forcing him, at the last minute, to drive across the state during flood warnings. To top it off, they manufactured evidence in court to use against him which, thankfully, turned out to be the key in getting them to drop their case, given that my father picked up the law very quickly in response to all of this.
Do I hate discrimination laws? You better believe it, pal. Again, though, I don’t buy the slippery slope argument as it relates to gay marriage.
Amen to that.
On that point, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Some people out there, believe it or not, still see interracial marriage as not marriage. That’s fine if they want to believe that. I won’t begrudge them that belief, as long as it doesn’t interfere with whatever church’s ability to say that it is marriage under their faith.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM
your faith isn’t christianity, OBVIOUSLY. you defame christianty. turning into the faith of liberalism.
you’ve perverted it far more. and for far worse reasons.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM
If you hadn’t noticed my earlier post, I am at work. Seriously, hook up a car battery to your brain and try for a moment to understand the concept of a metaphor.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM
You love to keep fantasizing about people who disagree with you being gay, don’t you?
Keep focusing on this word: projection.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:41 AM
you sure have an intimate understanding of stupid.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:42 AM
yeah its funny the way you think you’re intelligent, and straight.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:42 AM
On nothing are you less authorized to speak. You do not speak for god, and you sin in pride when you claim to do so.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:43 AM
You keep on wishing.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:43 AM
and you speak from mt. sinai huh? and of course YOU speak for God…otherwise how would know I do not? hmmmmm???
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM
it would take far more than a wish to make you intelligent…a miracle is more like it.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Trust me. I’m one of the people that never confuses your loving and benevolent god with their vengeful, spiteful, and hate-filled overlord.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:45 AM
and what is that god’s name?
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I read the article a few months ago and again today. I pulled one quote (and shouldn’t pull more at one time under “fair use”).
The study ultimately comes down to a “judgment call” about correlated changes among various social groups. Are there case studies that demonstrate how gay marriage caused this?
In order to cover sufficient time, the study identifies the campaign for gay marriage (rather than the passage of the act) as a cause. If that is the case, then the U.S. will have a problem merely due to the existence of free speech for gays advocating for marriage.
dedalus on October 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
You would have said the same thing to Jesus were he here. That’s the real irony. If he came back, and argued with you as I do now, you would forsake him.
Why? You don’t really love him. You fear him. You’re fearing judgment. Your conscience and heart are filled with doubt.
If he comes around, even though I don’t believe he is the son of any god, he’ll be welcome in my home after you finish decrying him as an apostate.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Why ask me the name of something I don’t believe in?
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:49 AM
By not judging, I’m giving it to God.
And no, I don’t hate you or anyone else who opposes gay marriage. I’ve already said repeatedly in this thread that I understand why people would be against homosexuality and gay marriage.
You simply make me sick.
Esthier on October 13, 2008 at 10:50 AM
keep trying to spin it. the results are obvious. Kurtz has written many articles on the subjet. but its obvious no matter what you are for gay marriage.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM
That’s the thing about conservatives versus liberals. Conservatives (in large part) understand and can see why liberals think the way they do. Liberals can’t do the same for conservatives.
The same rule applies here.
MadisonConservative on October 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM
you are DRIPPING with venom, bile, and HATRED toward anyone who disagrees with gay marriage.
you disgust me. for your lies, for your hatred, for your twisting of scripture.
right4life on October 13, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 Next »